Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War,
American leaders without any official international blessing simply began
to act like global leaders. A close historic precedent was set in 1876 when
the British Parliament with a de facto coronation designated Queen
Victoria empress of India. Less than twenty-five years later, Britain became
involved in two successive distant, self-destructive, protracted, guerrilla
Boer Wars which discredited the "liberal " British empire, gave Hitler the
model for concentration camps, and saw the rendition of prisoners to
confinement in distant British-held islands. Symptomatic of Brittan's
supremacy was an increased frequency of military engagement in combat and
coercive operations.

America's emergence as the world's most powerful state saddled Washington
leadership with three new central missions:
1) to manage and shape central power relationships
2) to contain or terminate conflicts, prevent terrorism and the
proliferation of mass destruction weapons, and promote collective
peacekeeping
3) to address more effectively the increasing intolerable inequalities of
the human condition.

How
did America's first three global post-cold war leaders, George H. W. Bush, William J.
Clinton, and George W. Bush interpret the essence of the new era? Did they
use an historically relevant vision to peruse a coherent strategy? Did their
most consequential foreign policy decisions leave the world in better shape with a stronger United States? What lessons can be drawn from
America's performance as the first global superpower?

This book postulates certain basic strategic conclusions and fundamental
guidelines regarding the current moment in history that ought to enlighten
future American Presidents. Moreover, Americans need to ask themselves
whether American society is guided by values and its government structured
in a manner congenial to effective long-term global leadership. Do they
understand the historical moment?

As with all Presidents, our first three global leaders differed in
experience and involvement. George H. W. Bush had considerable background,
knew what he wanted to do and chose a close friend with similar views as
national security advisor. Bill Clinton held the view that it was time
to correct years of presidential
neglect of America's domestic affairs and for his first term filled leading foreign
policy positions with people who were not strategically dominate. His second
term brought more politically active figures. George W. Bush delegated
national affairs to a distinguished national figure until 9/11 shocked the
president out of his foreign affairs lethargy. Policy then gravitated to the vice president and highly motivated officials in the White House and
Defense Department.

We will find that3
Global Leader I was most experienced, diplomatically skillful, but was not
guided by a bold vision at a very unconventional historic moment. Global
Leader II , the brightest and most futuristic, lacked strategy consistence
in the use of American power. Global Leader III had strong gut
instincts but no knowledge of global complexities and a temperament prone
to dogmatic formulations.

2. The Mist of Victory(and the Spawning of Clashing Historical Views)Confused Expectations-The Search for Certitude

The defeat of the Soviet Union was the consequence of a forty-year
bipartisan effort that spanned nine presidencies. Complicating official
perceptions and tempering public expectations at the end of the Cold War was
that the world America inherited as its ward was neither historically at
ease nor truly at peace. Nevertheless, America's opportunity was
greater than it was in 1945 but this was less clear. American
power faced no threat and the Atlantic alliance was strong. Even more
promising was America's politically cordial relationship with the developing
European Union. The rise of Asia was perceived as a distant prospect. The leading candidate for a major role was Japan
which was increasingly redefined as
a "Western" democracy and a member of the trilateral club with America and
Europe.

But, the formerly
imperial Soviet Union was experiencing soon to be violent pangs of national
separation. China was in the early stages of an impressively prudent
politically guided social transformation. She was still quietly savoring the
success of her semi covert strategic collaboration with America in finally
defeating the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This was followed by a
deplorable American neglect of that country's future. The issue of nuclear
proliferation gained new urgency. North Korea, suddenly bereft of Soviet
protection and began to seek its own atomic weapons. India's defiance of
nonproliferation was more suspect, Israel's surreptitious acquisition was
hardly a secret, and South Africa's efforts were being closely scrutinized.
Iran, Syria, and others were strategically adrift because of the loss of
Soviet military and political support for their hostility toward Israel.
Lastly, the Third World lost the political and economic advantage of being a
Nonaligned block and socioeconomic trouble was brewing among its
politically awakened populations.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and Bush
I felt America had to respond and wisely realized that the response had
to respect international law and the interest of other countries. The war
ended quickly and represented Bush's greatest military victory and his most
conclusive political outcome. But3, Most Americans remain
blissfully unaware of the old Arab grievances against British imperial
domination, the unfulfilled promise of emancipation from the Ottoman rule,
and the periodically brutal repression of rising Arab nationalism. During
1992 contentious squabbles slowed extensive efforts to foster peace
between Israel and her neighbors without a fundamental
breakthrough. See
D'Arcy Oil Concession

The unfortunate result was that President Bush's unconsummated success
in Iraq became the original sin of his legacy: the inconclusive but
increasingly resented and self-damaging American involvement in the Middle
East

The lack of a
priority concerning nonproliferation became especially apparent in late 1992
when the administration's draft Defense Planning Guideline was leaked to the
press. It contained sensible and tough-minded recommendations for exploiting
the fall of the Soviet Union and the defeat of Iraq. It postulated a view
heavily influenced by traditional balance-of-power politics while bluntly
asserting American global military superiority. The zone of U.S.
predominance was to expand eastward in Europe and was to be firmly
consolidated in the Middle East. The imperious overtones were tempered
in the final draft by a public outcry of the March draft. The midlevel
Defense Department and NSC officials who wrote the guideline were senior
level officials. A decade later its principle sponsor, then the Secretary
of Defense, was now Vice President Cheney.

The Bush I administration
(1989-1992) had to confront
intensive, wide-ranging global turmoil. He did a good job managing the fall of
the Soviet Union by still treating them as a preeminent player. China's
crisis, as exemplified by Tiananmen Square, was handled with a relatively
mild public rebuke and without jeopardizing the strategic relationship that
had developed between the United States and China after President Carter's
1979 breakthrough in the normalization of relations. But the Bush
administration was caught unaware of the escalating Yugoslav crisis. They
underestimated the genuine depth of non-Russian nationalism within the
faltering states and had considerable concern regarding the eventual
collapse of "a strong center." They were predispose to help preserve
it. The lone dissenter was Secretary of Defense Chaney. Finally, the
administration was very passive toward war torn Afghanistan with
nearly 20% of its population living as refugees in Pakistan and Iran.

Just days after Bush I took
office, Soviet troops withdrew from their ten year invasion of Afghanistan.

They had failed to crush persistent Afghan Muslim resistance backed by a semi covert coalition of the U.S., G.B., Pakistan.,
China, Saudi Arabia, and others.

The deployment of U.S. troops on the sacred ground in Saudi
Arabia provided the stimulus for religious fanatics to articulate a doctrine
of hate for America. The Sunni Wahabis echoed, in a somewhat different
terminology, the Iranian Shiite leadership's earlier labeling of America as
the "Great Satan." A fatwa by a hitherto obscure wealthy Saudi militant family targeted America as the desecrator of holy Islamic
sites and the principal sponsor of Israel. Al Qaeda thus made its appearance
on the world stage.

A top
priority of the Bush I administration was to make certain the Soviet
nuclear arsenal did not fall into unreliable hands. A lot of energy and
skill was expended to the redeployment of weapons from newly independent
Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.

A late 1989 U.N. resolution cosponsored by Pakistan and
Bangladesh in favor of a South Asia nuclear -free zone was passed, but
failed because India opposed it.

Anxiety surfaced that North Korea might also be seeking nuclear
weapons. In 1991, hoping to persuade her to accept International Atomic Energy
Agency supervision, the U.S. removed its nuclear weapons from South Korea.
She issued the Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
In 1992, North Korea ratified the safeguard agreement with IAEA and admitted
to possessing small amounts of uranium and plutonium.

4.
The Impotence of Good Intentioned
Bill Clinton
(and the Price of Self-Indulgence)
Shaping the Future*Indulging the PastEditor's Note: Zbigniew Brzezinski was Carter's National Security
Advisor

Summary

The War on
Terror

Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation

Wanting to stress domestics
issues, the Clinton administration (1993-2000) emphasized globalization.
This provided a convenient formula
for melding the domestic and the foreign policy into a single theme and freed him
from perusing a disciplined foreign policy strategy. The second term brought
adjustments with new Secretary of State Madeline Albright who was strongly committed
to the expansion of NATO.

The Soviet disappearance as a Soviet superpower created three significant opportunities for Clinton
to pursue his agenda of enhanced global security and cooperation:1) Limiting the arms race was helped with the consolidation of the
Soviet nuclear arsenal within Russia. Started in Bush's last year, it
was completed in 1996. The 1993 Start II agreement provided significant cuts
in American and Russian nuclear arsenals.
2) A more comprehensive global system of shared security was made
possible by the disappearance of a bipolar world.
3)The American-European partnership was upgraded
to have greater global significance. The most constructive and enduring
parts of Clinton's foreign policy was the creation of a stronger relationship with Russia,
the successful enlargement of NATO, and the formation of the European Union.
Editor's Note: Was Putin happy?

The passage of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement of Tariffs and
Trade and the establishment of the World Trade Organizations marked
continued progress toward global economic order.

But there were problems.
The liquidity crisis
in Southeast Asia, Japan's financial malaise, U.S. obstruction of the Ottawa
Treaty banning land mines and the Rome Statute for the new International
Criminal Court which could have made American military subject to
international prosecution all hinder global cooperation. The
U.S. Senate approval 95 to 0 of a resolution opposing the emission limiting
Kyoto Protocol didn't help.

Clinton's charisma at home eventually lost some of its glow because of
personal difficulties and the rising popular sentiment against social
self-denial required by global leadership.

The 1993 Oslo Accords
established de facto Palestinian self-rule. Prime Minister Rabin and PLO
leader Arafat would later share the Nobel Peace prize. The Israeli-Jordan
Peace treaty meant Israel now had normal relations with two of her three
immediate Moslem neighbors. Progress came to an end in 1995 when
a Israeli right-wing fanatic assassinated war hero Prime Minister Rabin.

In 2000 Israeli-Palestinian tensions rising.
Clinton went for broke by calling a meeting between the parties at Camp
David (much as President Carter had done twenty plus years earlier). What
happened is in dispute. Arafat came to be widely blamed for refusing a
generous offer and Palestine claimed the offer was never spelled out
formerly, with maps. Violence soon followed and led to the second
intifada (rebellion)3

As a result the US policy gradually drifted from the
commitment to a fair settlement to an increasingly one-sided pro-Israel posture.
Editor's Note: Americans would soon learn of a
Muslim
Jihad.

The issue of Iraq
lingered on with periodic administration ordered air strikes against Saddam's
military and a doubling of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. This provided grist
for the mills of anti-American fundamentalists, notably, Osama bin Laden.
Neoconservatives began campaigning for unilateral military action to remove
Saddam before he could acquire weapons of mass destruction. Many of these
people became
officials in the next administration.

An Iranian 1995 overture to open its oil fields to U.S. investment failed
as President Clinton banned trade with extremist Iran. Iranian
moderates won the 1997 election but
President Clinton feared domestic repercussions from Israeli and
Iranian-American lobbies chose not to react. Before long anti American
fundamentalists were back in charge.

In 1993, Al
Qaeda's failed attempt to blow up the World Trade Center resulted in
retaliation bombings of their operation in Sudan and Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

In 1998, Al Qaeda attack U.S. Embassies in east Africa
and the
U.S. retaliated by bombings their operation in Sudan and Afghanistan

A wider global system of shared security started with more
effective impediments to nuclear weapons proliferation. A
danger from the use of these weapons by impoverished countries to settle
local political conflicts had emerged during the Bush I presidency.
Countries included North
Korea, India, Pakistan, and Libya. In 1995 Iran contracted with Russia for the construction of the Bushehr
nuclear plant.

Within weeks of Clinton's first 1993 inauguration North Korea refused the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demand for additional inspections
and threaten withdrawal from the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The Clinton
administration responded with a proposal to help North Korea with a peaceful
nuclear program and promised not to use force against her, but no credible
punitive threat was used.
Preemptive 1996 strikes against North Korea nuclear facility were considered and rejected. Numerous political initiatives failed.

American opposition India and Pakistani's quests for nuclear weapons
showed similar futility. Editor's Note: There 1998
membership into the nuclear club was a surprise to all, including the CIA.

As the North Korea saga unfolded, the U.S. administration succeeded in its efforts to
obtain an indefinite extension of the NPT though French and Chinese nuclear
tests made these efforts more difficult. The Senates failed to ratify the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and this strengthen the view of many abroad
that the American quest for nonproliferation was driven by essentially
monopolistic motives.

5. Catastrophic Leadership
from George Bush
(and the Politics of Fear)
The "Central Front" as the Cemetery of Neocon Dreams* And the Rest of the
World

Summary

Bush II choice of top associates, vice president Chaney, secretary of
defense Powell, and secretary of defense Rumsfeld implied continuity
with the realism of Bush I's foreign policy.

Initially, they focused on Bush I's unfinished
business of missile defense, military transformation, and big power
relationships.

War on Terror

Strategically, the "war on
terror" reflected the traditional imperial concerns over control of Persian
Gulf resources and the neoconservative desire to enhance Israel's security
by eliminating threats from Iraq.

Critical roles were held by national security advisor
Rice, the VP's chief of staff Libby, and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz.
The later two collaborated on a 1991 strategic document articulating the
case for unadulterated American global military superiority and both held
strong views on the Middle East.

Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation

The initial focus of the Bush administration
was not on nuclear proliferation.

In
2001,at their first meeting in Ljubljana,
Bush looks into Putin's
soul and
has positive vibes.

9/11/01 Occursand the U.S. had unanimous national and international
support to overthrow the Taliban controlled government of Afghanistan,
because it proved al Qaeda shelter.

In 2002
President Bush labeled North Korea, Iran, and Iraq the "axis of evil ."
The U.S. withdraws from the ABM treaty and the International
Criminal Court Treaty. Israeli, with U.S. support, crushes the
Palestine authority. Using force in Iraq was approved by
Congress and the UN.

A 2002 cleavage of what
to do next developed between
neoconservative Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz
who wanted to follow-up against Iraq and
Secretary of
State Powell who was mindful of a riskier larger war.

In 2002
North Korea rejected IAEA restrictions and states that its nuclear
facilities are a discussion matter for only herself and the United States.
Russia began constructing Iran's first nuclear plant at Bushehr.

In
2003, Turkey refuses to allow U.S. troop deployment, France, Germany,
and Russia openly oppose the Iraq War. Weapons of mass destruction
are not found. NATO takes command of the Afghanistan International
Security Assistance Force.

It took a mere three weeks to
destroy Saddam Hussein's regime. By elevating the 9/11 criminal attack
into an allegorical declaration of war, his advisors anointed the president
with the status of "wartime" commander in chief with enhanced executive
authority. The arrogance that swept the Bush administration was captured by
Ron Suskind's October of 2004 New York Time Magazine story which a senior Bush aid derisively
dismissed the criticism. Said the official," ... We are the empire
now..." Not surprisingly, a nemesis was not long in coming.

In 2003,
the
United States responded to North Korea's announced withdrawal from the
Nonproliferation Treaty with a call for a regional solution. Russia and
China block U.N. condemnation of North Korea.

In 2004,
NATO expanded by seven countries and the EU expanded by ten countries.
The Abu Ghraib prison scandal erupts while resistance to U.S. occupation
and sectarian strife mount in Iraq.

Terror bombings hit Madrid in 2004

In 2005,
Kyoto Protocol without the U.S. goes into effect. Iraqi Sectarian
violence intensifies.

In 2006,
Violence mounts in Palestine and Iraq, erupts in Lebanon, and resurfaces
in Afghanistan.

Terror bombings hit London and
Ahmandinejad elected president of Iran.
Bush II finally accepted the international architecture demonstrated by the
Six-Party talks concerning North Korean nuclear activity and explored
negotiations with Iran over the 1990
member of the "axis of evil. After the war, the
U.S., rebuffed a an Iranian probe regarding the possibility of a
dialogue on security, economic issues, and nuclear safeguards.

Iran
reverses its pledge not to enrich uranium.
North Korea announces it possess a nuclear weapon
and Iran resumes enriching
nuclear weapons.

6. Summary

Summary

Three articles of
faith which were largely derived from the neocons worldview were
fervently embraced by the administration.
They underlie the decisions
that transformed military success in Afghanistan into a disaster in
Iraq.

1) Terror originating from the Middle East
reflected a nihilistic
rage toward America
that was unrelated to recent history and
political
conflicts.

2) The political culture of the region respected force
above all else.

3) The electoral democracy could be imposed from the
outside.

War on
Terror
The cost of removing Saddam Hussein were
it
1) discredited America's global leadership which limiting her capacity
to affect nuclear proliferation and other issues.
2) killed many.
3) created a geopolitical disaster diverting attention and over 300
billion dollars from the war on terror.
4) removed the only Arab state capable of standing alone against
Iran.
5) increased the terrorist threat to the United States as it
relabeled the Iraq war as "the central front in the "war on
terror."
6) enhanced the unified Islamic opinion against the U.S. and created fertile soil
for new terrorist recruits.

Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Mobilizing Chinese
and Russian support in limiting North Koreas nuclear efforts were
undermined
by Bush's unilateral decision to abandon opposition to
India's nuclear weapons program.

America failed to capitalize on her Cold War victory and
missed two historical opportunities of 1)
failing to shape and even
institutionalize an Atlantic community with a shared strategic focus 2) she
failed to act decisively on the Israeli-Palestine problem.

America may have a
second chance because Russia can not decide whether she wants to be a
socially backward Eurasian authoritarian state or a genuinely modern
European democracy.

China has a Far Eastern rival in Japan and has to
resolve the contradiction between her freewheeling economy and her
bureaucratic centrist political system.

India has yet to show it can sustain
unity and
democracy
should her religious, ethnic, and linguistically
diversity become politically charged.

Success as the World's leader
will depend
on her answering important questions. Answers are not easy.

1) Is the American system structurally
equipped to formulate and sustain a global policy to protect her own
interests and also promotes global security and well-being? Policies with worldwide impact must no longer be structured largely on
domestic stimuli.
The executive and legislative branches must have a formal policy for
taking a long-range view at the global future and for consulting about
needed policy.

Lobbying leaves the impression that American foreign policy is for sale
needs fixing.

2) Is the American society up for a
sustained leadership role that requires a degree of responsible
self-restraint derived from an understanding of global trends? Material self
indulgence, personal short comings, and public ignorance about the world are compounding
in an increasing way. This adds to the difficulty our democracy faces in
formulating a globally appealing program for effective global leadership.

3) Does America intuitively sense what
the global political awakening implies?Today's global political awakening is socially massive,
politically radicalizing, and geographically universal. It has aroused
modern populist political passions, sometimes against distant targets while
not having a unifying Marxist like doctrine.

8.
Epilogue

American
paramount has been described as the new global empire and history shows the
longevity of empires
has recently, because of political awakenings and technology, shrunk
dramatically.

Populist activism's anti-Western
character has more to do with historical experience and Western domination
than ideological or religious bias.

By 2020 the Euro-Atlantic world will have
only 15% of the world's population and
the power shift is most evident in increased Asian economic power.

Geopolitical conclusions:
1) America must preserve and fortify her special transatlantic ties.
2) Atlantic community must become open to maximum participation by
all successful states.
3) America must promote Sino-Japanese reconciliation to increase China's
participation in the larger global system and lower the possibility of a
potentially dangerous rivalry.
4) The G8 must be replaced with a more relevant body with much
wider participation.
5) America and her policy needs a renewal derived from the American people's
appreciation of the revolutionary impact of a more politically assertive
humanity.

9. Beyond 2008-America's Second
Chance

Geopolitical Trends Adverse to US
1) Intensifying Arab World Western hostility
2. An explosive Middle East

Quick Notes Footnotes 1 From the 2007 first edition
2. Table, column and row titles, and name abbreviations
are by Walter Antoniotti
3. Walter's addition
4. Authors note: I have concentrated on the war on terror and nuclear
proliferation at the expense of activities associated with Israel, China,
Russia, Palestine, Lebanon, the new "Global Balkans" many more important
topics.